Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Company Store (Score 1) 664

The only thing that concerned me in the article is that Uber is leasing the car. Uber should not be running a company store. That creates debt slavery.

If the self-employed want to get a jump on their competition by sleeping in their cars, that's their choice. If you don't want the low-skill self-employed life where you work your tail off, work a low-skill 9 to 5 job instead.

Comment Re:I think civility is going to go out the window (Score 2) 1548

3) The right to abortion. First off, this is a legal right, which Republicans have been trying to whittle away in a very sneaky manner for decades. For a party that is supposedly all about "law and order", and a party who considers itself pious, religious and morally upright (I know, I know), this is hardly honourable. At least attempts to outright repeal Roe v. Wade via Constitutional amendment are honest and forthright.

You guys complain when we try to whittle away gun rights; you really can't complain if you do the same thing with abortion.

But I digress.

Let's say you're a "good person" who is "pro-life". You believe human life is sacred. So you believe abortion should be illegal.

Sounds great, right?

Except if you try to actually apply science to this, it all falls apart. First off, a human fetus is no more sentient to pain than, say, a baby monkey, and certainly less aware of pain than the adult cows and pigs you kill to eat your food. If you claim abortion should not be allowed because it causes pain to a fetus, you should be a vegetarian, if not a vegan. But you probably aren't.

And then there's that whole pesky "self-determination" thing. Again. What you're saying is "I believe that OTHER PEOPLE should not have the right to make their own choices about their own lives" (or, rather, their own fetuses' lives.) See, us liberals aren't stupid. We know that a fetus is alive. We just recognise that it's a living FETUS, not a living PERSON. We have the basic understanding of scientific principles to recognise that a fetus is not a baby, and we believe that, up until a point (or if the life of the mother is in danger, at ANY point) the person bearing a fetus should have the right to choose whether or not to continue to bear said fetus.

It isn't murder, because a fetus isn't a baby. It's a fetus. We recognise this, because we aren't blinded by religious dogma. But you... well... ARE.

And as a result, you attempt to force every woman who gets pregnant-- with or even without her consent-- to carry any resulting child[ren] to term, regardless of her OWN WISHES for her OWN BODY. Some of you even go so far as to say there should be no exception for the life of the mother, which is basically saying "I'd rather a sapient woman die for the slight chance of a nonsapient fetus surviving". And yet, most of the conservative people I've talked to are pro-death-penalty (and it's been proven that plenty of innocent people get executed), so... again. Good people? No, not really. You really aren't.

Let's look at the OTHER end of life, shall we? Most "pro-life" people are against assisted suicide. You claim that you are against abortion because it causes pain and suffering to the (again, non-sapient, not-yet-a-baby) fetus, yet you are completely okay with, say, cancer patients being forced against their will to suffer in endless pain rather than being allowed to kill themselves.

Because you're... good... people? No... no, you really aren't, and yes, us liberals are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to see your hypocrisy as hateful.

Let's go on.

4) Universal healthcare! Oh, but this is a good one. I know the "conservative" argument backwards and forwards. "You're entitled to buy your own healthcare; you're not entitled to force me to pay for anyone else's healthcare." Which is just a fancy way of saying "if you can't afford healthcare, then I am okay with you dying." You brush this under the rug by saying things like "if you can't afford healthcare, you should appeal to charities" or "if you can't afford healthcare, you can get a loan", but this is, again, contrary to reality. THE REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD HEALTHCARE, AND UNLESS HEALTHCARE IS UNIVERSAL, SOME PEOPLE -WILL- FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS.

But you can't be arsed to care, because "muh money!" You'd literally rather let some people suffer, die, or go without healthcare than be forced to... have a bit higher of a tax bill.

So... not quite "seething wraith" material, but you're definitely a hateful asshole, yes.

I could go on and on, but my point is, basically, that nowadays the definition of "conservative" in the US is basically "the party of selfishness." You regularly ignore the findings of science in favour of religious dogma; you preach selfishness as a virtue (thanks a bundle, Ayn Rand); you are all for self-determination when it's YOUR self-determination and those of people who believe JUST LIKE YOU. But for the rest of us... well. You really don't care.

Comment Re:I think civility is going to go out the window (Score 2) 1548

Hi. You said: "I would love to have polite, civil discussions, but the left is going to need to stop shouting down, deplatforming, and physically attacking everyone who disagrees with them, and understand that it's possible to disagree with leftist politics without being a seething wraith of pure hatred wrapped in human skin. I don't see this happening any time soon though."

Let's look at the bulk of the left's platform from recent years, and let's see how possible it is to be a "good person" who opposes it.

1) Equal marriage rights for gay couples. If you're against this, then you believe that certain civil contracts should not be allowed to people who love the "wrong" gender[s] of person. Literally the best (and most common) defence of "straight only marriage" is "it's necessary for reproduction." Except the overwhelming majority of anti-gay-marriage people believe that celibate, sterile, or post-menopausal straight couples should be allowed to marry, so that puts the lie to that. Leaving... only bigotry. "Pure hatred"? Maybe not, but definitely bigotry. (To say nothing of how primitive the "marriage is about reproduction and only reproduction" notion is, but that's more of an opinion, so hey.)

2) The right of transgender people (like myself) to use the restroom they feel comfortable with, and not the restroom OTHER PEOPLE would feel more comfortable with them urinating/defecating in. If you disagree with this, then you disagree with a small and often-maligned minority's right to self-determination. The only valid reason to do this is to claim that it puts cis ("non-trans") people at risk-- so this is precisely what "conservatives" (bigots) do.

Except that's bullshit. Trans people use the restrooms of our choice every day, every week, every year, and we don't make a habit of victimising cis people in the restroom. IF WE DID, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SPLASHED ACROSS EVERY HEADLINE IN THE NATION.

At this point in the "debate", the "conservative" will usually say "well, if we let 'legitimate' trans women into ladies' rooms, then plain old ordinary men will go too, just to harass women!" Except harassment, voyeuristic acts, rape, etc. are ALREADY illegal, and-- to use the "conservative's" favourite argument about gun laws, "criminals aren't known for following laws", so if men wanted to do illegal things, they'd ALREADY BE DOING IT.

Leaving, again... you guessed it! Bigotry. Maybe you're not "a seething wraith", but you're not exactly bastion of respect for other peoples' self-determination.

Shall I go on? Oh, but I will.

Submission + - GMail app update blocking non-GMail servers

ukoda writes: Given the GMail Android app is bundled with most Android phone and has offered support for email accounts with other service providers it has become a popular email client. However sometime in November last year Google updated their app to silently reject self-signed certificates. For users of servers with self-signed certificates their email stopped coming in. Refreshing the inbox appears to go normally with no problems reported. From this support thread it is apparent that server connections are being rejected with the warning "Certificate Not Valid" even when the "All Certificates" option is chosen. The explanation from Google is they are improving security but for some users that had a working secure connection they now have to either stay with GMail, and turn off encryption, or move to a new app such as K9 or BlueMail. The lack of meaningful responses from Google leave little hope of things improving anytime soon.

Comment Re:Zuckerberg (Score 5, Informative) 284

RTFA. Ownership of a grant total of 8 acres entirely enclosed within Zuckerberg's land is unclear. Nobody lives there. Nobody's paid taxes on the land in decades. The lawsuit basically says, "step up or shut up." If anyone actually steps up and says, "It's mine, here's the taxes and the proof I own it," then it doesn't get sold.

Comment Never (Score 1) 4

I have never lost a headphone cable that way even after many years of use. Not even with cheap earbuds. What are you doing to stress the cable? Does the way you wear the device put pressure on the connector?

On the other hand, I destroy most shoes in a matter of weeks so I get where you;re coming from.

Next time, consider replacing the connector with something like https://www.amazon.com/Stereo-... and see if that helps.

Comment Re: Unlimited? (Score 1) 196

Small cells negate the "limited amount of spectrum" argument. It's a financial + logistical + political/regulatory limitation, not a technical one.

Technology will eventually advance to the point that the financial consideration is less important. We're already working with beam-forming -- a technology that's existed for decades, in radar applications -- for instance. Wireless is the future, no matter what the naysayers think, and if you're still thinking of "spectrum" as the limiting factor you're behind the curve. Makes me think of the folks who deploy IPv6 for the first time and start worrying about the "waste" of addresses.

Comment Re:Unlimited? (Score 1) 196

There's no technical reason why an LTE network can't be engineered to provide truly unlimited data with acceptable speeds in most instances. There is, however, a financial reason, plus the usual regulatory/political concerns that get in the way of new cell sites. It's worth noting that T-Mobile manages to offer unlimited with an asterisk (video throttled to 1.5Mbps) and in many cases delivers superior speed than Verizon, so it's clearly POSSIBLE and PROFITABLE to use as a business model.

In rural/fixed-wireless settings LTE is actually cheaper than DSL/cable and the favorable contention ratios (i.e., low population density) make unlimited possible with today's network. It's a mystery to me why they won't offer an unlimited product for this market segment at least; it would be the death blow for satellite internet.

Submission + - A Case of Legalized Software Vulerability Exploitation? (cio.com)

Required Snark writes: CIO Magazine reports that a venture capital firm teamed up with a medical software security company to monetize a flaw they found in a medical device. The security company is MedSec, and the device is a pacemaker manufactured by St. Jude Medical. The venture capital firm is unnamed.

For better or worse, a security firm’s attempt to cash in on software bugs — by shorting a company’s stock and then publicizing the flaws — might have pioneered a new approach to vulnerability disclosure.

Last August, security company MedSec revealed it had found flaws in pacemakers and other healthcare products from St. Jude Medical, potentially putting patients at risk.

However, the controversy came over how MedSec sought to cash in on those bugs: it did so, by partnering with an investment firm to bet against St. Jude’s stock.

Is this a good development or another litigation nightmare that will consume resources and deter innovation? Given that companies find critical flaws and never disclose (or even fix) them, is the legal system and effecting stock values a reasonable remedy?

This is the first instance of clearly explosive trend. One security researcher said “Every single hedge fund has reached out to me.”

Slashdot Top Deals

You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape. - Ellyn Mustard

Working...